Posted on 01/15/2004 12:57:59 PM PST by NutCrackerBoy
It might have been Ross Perot who first used the expression that America is turning into a nation of "hamburger flippers," in reference to the decline in good paying manufacturing jobs replaced by low-pay service sector jobs.
Here's my question: If millions of high-paying jobs are leaving the country only to be replaced by millions of low-paying jobs, what prediction would you make about the trend in our standard of living? It would have to be in steep decline, but the facts don't square with that. Per capita GDP, the population divided into the value of goods and services produced, is one of the methods used to gauge the standard of living. The historical trend, including today, is a rising American standard of living. In fact, our per capita GDP in 1980 was $21,500 and, as of 2002, it was $36,000 -- a 59 percent increase. So how can it be that we're becoming a nation of low-pay hamburger flippers?
How about this pronouncement: The rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer? The Census Bureau just came out with a report saying that 35 million Americans are living in poverty. Robert Rector and Kirk A. Johnson addressed this figure in their recent publication "Understanding Poverty in America," produced by the Washington-based Heritage Foundation.
From various government reports they find that: 46 percent of poor households actually own their homes; 76 percent have air conditioning; the typical poor American has more living space than the average non-poor individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other cities in Europe; nearly 75 percent of poor households own one car, and 30 percent own two or more cars; 97 percent have at least one color television; 62 percent have cable or satellite reception; and 25 percent have cell phones.
While "poor" Americans don't live in opulence, they are surely not poor either by international or historical standards in our own country. I'm betting if God condemned an unborn spirit to a lifetime of poverty but He left him free to choose the country in which to be poor, he'd choose United States.
How many times have we heard that the rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer? Contrary to that nonsense, the fact of the matter is that some of the rich are getting poorer, and many of the poorer are getting richer.
According to the 1995 Annual Report of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, only 5 percent of those in the bottom 20 percent category of income earners in 1975 were still there in 1991. What happened to them? A majority made it to the top 60 percent of the income distribution -- middle class or better -- over that 16-year span. Almost 29 percent of them rose to the top 20 percent.
The evidence suggests that low income is largely a transitory experience for those willing to work. There's no mystery to it: As a function of age, people get wiser and gain more experience. That means it's not very intelligent to think one can make meaningful statements about poverty simply by measuring income at a particular point in time. By the way, people are also mobile downward, as suggested by the joke that the easiest way to become a Texas millionaire is to start out as a Texas billionaire.
Here's Williams' roadmap out of poverty: Complete high school; get a job, any kind of a job; get married before having children; and be a law-abiding citizen. Among both black and white Americans so described, the poverty rate is in the single digits.
ROTFLMSO
Liberals lie a lot, and tell half-truths even more."well documented by liberals" is pretty close to being an oxymoron, but you're welcome to provide links to solid data / argumentation in support of your thesis . . .
It's not my imagination.
With the superficial slop that Walter is shilling to a dumbed-down American populace, there is no doubt that he is an abolute embarrassment to those who take economics seriously.
That's a good way of thinking about it.
Today, the expenditures per person of the lowest-income one-fifth (or quintile) of households equal those of the median American household in the early 1970s, after adjusting for inflation. -Understanding Poverty in America (Backgrounder #1713) by Robert E. Rector and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D.
That strongly indicates to me that the figures were not mistaken.
Willie Green, a legend in his own tiny mind. LOL
I don't think I've ever made any claim of being "THE expert"...
But I was fortunate to have an opportunity to receive a good education and I studied diligently to earn my degrees.
It makes it pretty easy to poke holes in this disingenuous and convoluted political propaganda that's cranked out by Walter Williams. And considering his educational background, it's also pretty sad that he doesn't have the personal integrity to author a more objective economic analysis.
And as far as your sarcastic personal attack against me...
Well, that certainly isn't any surprise...
You've demonstrated that same adolescent behavior countless times before,
I don't see any reason why I should expect a reply with any substance from you.
I think you are forgetting that population also increases, not just GDP, bringing down the per capita measure.
21,000 does not sound unreasonable to me. Remember, it's just per-capita, not per-worker or per-earner.
I post valid, substance filled replies, as well as a few poking you in the eye. As far as your posts, they are NOT ones filled with substance, rational, nor even anything at all, showing your supposed education and perpescatiousness.;^)
That sounds more like the measure of someone's age rather than their earnings. I would guess that the vast majority of people who fit your above description are 50+.
I see no reason to respect Walter Williams' opinion when he obviously doesn't have any self-respect for his own educational achievements. The man is a hack and a shill. He knowingly distorts and advocates corrupted and incorrect economic propaganda to fullfill a political agenda. His credibility is as worthless as Michael Moore's.
Almost no one, used to buy a house outright, for the last 100 years at least and longer, actually. The old N.E. custom, of putting a small ivory round, into the newel SP ? ) post of the main stairway, once the mortgage was paid off, took many years to accomplish.
We bought this house with cash, have a sizable savings account,have an investment portfolio and did so when we were NOT 50+. And yes, I know of others who fall into that category too.
The fact is, more people own their own home now, with a mortgage, or without one, than at any other time in this nation's history.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.